Should forensic psychiatrists testify about evil?

Evil is a concept that has fascinated and puzzled humankind for centuries. We confront evil on large scales, such as the Holocaust, on smaller scales, such as serial killers, and in day-to-day interactions that involve discrimination against or exploitation of others. During moments of reflection, we may even acknowledge the capacity for evil within ourselves. We are exposed daily to evil intentions that turn into depraved acts. Forensic psychiatrists have more opportunities than most to contemplate the nature of evil and depravity. We are asked to evaluate individuals accused of committing some of the most horrific acts imaginable. Forensic psychiatrist Michael M. Welner has designed a “Depravity Scale.” The Depravity Scale contains 26 items describing potential features of depraved intent, behavior, and/or attitudes. It purports to provide a standardized scale that the justice system can use to determine with scientific certainty what constitutes a depraved act. Dr. Welner presented the Depravity Scale at the 2001 annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association before a large, interested audience. He defines depravity as the intent to maximize damage, to traumatize emotionally or to disfigure permanently, to prolong suffering, and to cause unrelenting emotional or physical harm. Depravity also considers the quality of a victim’s suffering and the degree of physical harm. Indifference or satisfaction in committing the harmful act is another element of the definition. The perpetrator projects onto the victim the responsibility for depravity. The Depravity Scale assesses the evil of the event, not the who or the why. The list identifies the failure in empathy as a key characteristic. However, depravity remains as imprecise and subjective a term as its synonym—evil. The who, why, what, how, and when are vital in the forensic psychiatric assessment of individuals charged with crimes. The event cannot be separated from the perpetrator. If used in forensic psychiatric testimony, the Depravity Scale must meet a trial court’s scrutiny under Daubert criteria for admissibility of scientific evidence. The criteria include the testability of the underlying theory, peer review, and publication, factors affecting the potential error rate and the general acceptability by the relevant scientific community. Daniel W. Shuman, Professor of Law at Southern Methodist University, states, “As to relevance, no legal standard with which I am familiar turns on depravity—to what is this relevant in the forensic world?” (Ref. 6). Like pornography, most people recognize evil when they see it. Arriving at a universal definition of evil, however, is impossible. Evil is a complex concept, akin to a thick rope of many intertwining strands in which philosophers and theologians become entangled. The perception of evil is in the eye of the beholder, influenced by moral, social, political, religious, philosophical, psychological, and other factors. For example, combatants frequently brand their enemies as evil, even while each side is certain that God is on their side. The 9/11 terrorists devoutly believed that murdering thousands of innocent people would insure entrance into paradise. Antiabortionists who kill doctors or other abortion clinic personnel insist that they are killing murderers. Robert I. Simon is Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, Director, Program in Psychiatry and the Law, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, and Chairman, Department of Psychiatry, Suburban Hospital, Bethesda, MD. Address correspondence to: Robert I. Simon, MD, 8008 Horseshoe Lane, Potomac, MD 20854-3831.